"In this case, a key component to the defense verdict was the fact that the defendants were able to provide convincing expert testimony regarding the outcome of the decedent’s situation if the diagnosis had been tendered earlier, as argued by the plaintiff," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.
The court found that treatment performance was below the standard of care.
"The defense claimed that the patient’s kidney function was intact at the time of the CT scan and that the patient failed to follow up with his urologist," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.
"Based on their lines of questioning, it was apparent the defendant’s attorney wanted me to sit on the jury and the plaintiff’s attorney did not," writes Urology Times Content Channel Director Richard R. Kerr.
"It is prudent for providers to know the law of the jurisdiction where they practice and any applicable policies surrounding consult and documentation," advises Brianne Goodwin, JD, RN.
A pathologist and three urologists were accused of negligence in the lawsuit.
"As the primary witnesses for the defense, [the treating physicians] did not build credibility, were not likable, and did not take any responsibility for the medical care of the claimant," writes Brianne Goodwin, JD, RN.
"Where other indicators of medical malpractice claims have decreased over the years, the prevalence of diagnostic error has not changed, calling for more innovating thinking, introspection, and systematic approaches to prevention and shared learning," writes Brianne Goodwin, JD, RN.
"The expert concluded that… had a urologist been consulted, additional attempts at placing a Foley catheter using a guidewire would have been made in an effort to relieve the retention," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.
"The plaintiff claimed the decedent’s cancer should have been diagnosed by the original urologist at least 3 years before the actual diagnosis, and claimed that timely diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the spread of the cancer," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.